Sie sind auf Seite 1von 104

f bid him rfllt!

#' Illwardl Inl' and pw lilt hil kiln;

at Iht mrnl' tim!' Ihmwingdm/JI/, carektl(y, a hool:
f luul In 111) 11(1111/1. I/e wlllurd. and ((lInt with
in feflrll of ddivnlnK Int 111(' leI/IT which lit f,tut

ml'/au(ml(l' 1'n(IIIKh. fllr In.t'to 1(11:('. willi hjJ

l')'fl Ilutled 011 III,I bowln, whirh was. th/'(nw" lIu

drsign (I di.lflrdl'r IIf 111) hrwdkmhiJ:j, HfJJicu-ntlJ

btl/c. and mthn- hfldrd lhal1 hid.

J I II '\

, I. I I. \ '\ I)

J ::

1 !I



o F






N E \V

Y 0 RK

------------------------------ -------------------..




T O "... "'" C,".nD

24,000- 22,000



Of RaMI!














G J\I. T ,





,,89-91- 1'111110 CRUSADE

t4}O- jl- QAV/I,) lIV













Of 17&7 roR














INO:< 15










78 A.D.



































1\1 0 0 It E





anthropologically, it's fair to say that we humans start

out fiddling with ourselves. Our improved scan technol
ogy reveals that most of us commence a life of self-pollution while


u l ero, and if we trace Ollr culture back to the first anifaclS that

sho\\'ed we had a culture, then we find ourselves confronted by a

hubcap-headed humming-lop of tits and ass carved lovingly from
IimeslOne, excavated from an Aurignacian settlement discovered
in a northeastern Austrian village known as Willendorf.
The mighty Robert Crumb, back in his awesomely prolific Weirdo
days, depicted the creator of the first

\tlu.s oJlVillendorJas Caveman

Bob, a neurasthenic outcast with a Strong resemblance to Crumb

himself-perpetually horny, crouching in his cave, and whacking
off over the big-bull fetish woman he had just made. 1-/01110 erec/us.
Crumb's point, in all probability, was that while she rna}' well have
functioned as a magic icon to induce fertility, and while 10 mod

e,'I! eyes she stallds (tS all example oj the prehistoric genesis oj flrl, the

Willendorf Venus was an object of arOllsal in the eyes of her creator,

a piece of stone-age stroke material-primal pornography. He ma}'

also have been saying that if we trace culture to its very origins, we
find its instigator LO be an obsessive smut-hound and compulsive
masturbator much like Crumb himself-or me, or you, or any of
us if wc are to be enlirely candid.
Humans, whether individually while in the womb or as a species
newly climbed down from the treetops thal we had shared with kiss-
ing-collsin bonobos, discover early on that sexual self-sLimulation
is a source of great gratification, pl'<lclically unique in our experi
ence as mammals in that it is easily achievable and, unlike almost

every other primitive activity, can be accomplished without risk of

being maimed or eaten. Also, it can be acquired completely free
of charge, which may well be a factor in society's subsequent at
tempts to regulate the sexual imagination-a point to which we'll
return later.
This is not to say. of course, that all society is a direct result of
chronic onanism, although I can see how one might come to thal
conclusion. Rather, it is to suggeslthat our impulse toward pornog
raphy has been with us since thumbs were fil'st opposable, and that

back at the outset of our bipedal experiment we saw it as a natural

part of life, one of the nicer parLs at that, and as a natural subject
for our protoartists.
Lest this be seen as a reinforcement of the view that porn is wholly
a Neanderthal pursuit, we should perhaps consider ancient Greece
and the erotic friezes that adorned itS civic centers-the magnifi.
cently sculpted marble figure of the god Pan violating many of our
current barnyard statutes and a really sluuy nanny goat in the bar
gain. Images such as these were clearly seen as eminently suitable
Grecian street furniture, depictions of an aspect of mammalian
existence that all rnammals knew about already and were comfort
able regarding, and which no one from the youngest child to the
most pious priest needed protecting from. In bygone Greece we
see a culture plainly unpenurbed by its erotic inclinations, largely
saturated by both sexual imagery and sexual narratives.

/cnu,J t/ Y/Jhn<'ky 08:Ri::iA:;;;tTi;



V'le also see a culture where these attitudes would seem to have
worked out quite well, both for the ancient Greeks and for human
ity at large. They may well have been holloK-eyed and hairy-palmed
erotomaniacs, but on the plus side they invented science, litera
ture, philosophy, and, well, civilization, as it turns oul.
Sexual openness and cultural progress walked hand-in-hand
throughout the opening chapters of the human story in the West,
and it wasn't until the advent of Christianity, or more specifically of
the apostle Paul, that anybody realized we should all be thoroughly
(lshamed of both our bodies and those processes relating to them.
Not until the Emperor Constantine had cut and pasted modern
Christianity together from loose scraps ofMithraism and the solat
cult of Sol InvicLUs, adopting the resu\t(ltll theological collage as
the religion of the Roman Empire, did we get to witness the effect
of its ideas and doctrines when enacted on a whole society.
If we take a traditional (and predominantly Christian) view of the
collapse of Rome, then conventional wisdom tells us that Rome was
destroyed by decadence, sunk beneath the rising scumline of its orgies and of its own sexual permissiveness. The merest skim through
Gibbon, on the other hand, will demonstrate that Rome had been
a heaving, decadent, and orgiastic fleshpot more or less since its
inception. It had fornicated its way quite successfully through
several centuries without showing any serious signs of harm as a
result. Once Constantine introduced compulsory Christianity to
the Empire, t.hough, it barely lasted another hundred years.
Largely, this was because Rome relied on foreign troops-on
cavalry from Egypt, for example-to defend the Empire against the
Teutonic hordes surrounding it. Foreign soldiers were originally
happy to enlist, since Rome at t.hat point \.Ook a pagan and syncre
tic standpoint that allowed recruits to worship their own gods while
they were off in northern Europe holding back the Huns. Once
the Empire had been Christianized, however, that was not an op
tion. Rome's new Christian leaders decided that it was their way or
the stairway, and so consequently, offin distant lands, recruitment
figures plummeted. The next thing anybody knew, there were

&;,J!e/<1/ "Ct'" '-''j'J li Ct Vig TAD

l:gi::t LT


barbarians ever)"vhere: the Huns, the Franks, the Visigoths, and

worst of all the Goths, with their white contact lenses and Cradle of
Filth collections. Rome, effectively, was over, bar the shouting.
So, to recap what we have learned so far: Sexually open and pro
gressive cultures such as ancient Greece have given the 'Nest almost
all of its civilizing aspects, whereas sexually repressive cultures such


late Rome have given us the Dark Ages.

Let u s fast-forward past almost a thousand years of Saxons, Oanes,

and Vikings ripped on ny agaric pillaging and raping their way
through some son of rneteoric nuclear winter with brains dripping
from their axes, howling about Odin and blood-eagling anybody
who chose not to do the same. \Vhcn lights eventually started

to come on again across the \Vestern world, we find a Christian

church that's understandably concerned about attracting worship
pers to its rough-hewn pews-and that had hit upon the notion of
erotic an as one way of accomplishing this end. The spread-legged


figure with a splayed vagina found crouched in the masonry of

many medieval British churches, misidentified as a Sheelagh-na
Gig, as a leftover mother-goddess from some earlier religion, was
in fact ofpurcly Christian origin and was originally intended as an
image reprcscnting Lust. If the folklorists had looked harder then
they would have ahnost certainly found similar depictions of Wrath,
Gluttony, Sloth, Avarice, and all the other deadly sins, although
that petrified and gaping pussy does tend lo seize more than its fair
share of the attention, which is probably no accidenL In churches
of that period, displays of pornographic imagery were not at all
uncommon, nor were they by any stretch of the imagination un
intentional. l)ictures of people copulating were a big draw when it
came to pulling in the congregations, after all, and were not sin
ful in themselves if they could be explained away as warnings to
the faithful: stern moral instructions to describe the shameful acts
that, were they actually committed, would result in certain hellfire
and damnation.
What the church actually accomplished with this crowd-pleasing
maneuver was a subtle and yet massively important change in the

relationship betwccn the population and ilS sexual imagination.

Implicitly, it was acceptable to enjoy sexual imagery as long as you
accepLCd also that such acts were sinful and fell suitably ashamed
and guilty if you were in any way aroused by their depiction. This
established the immediate link betwecn the perusal of pornogra
phy and intense self-loathing or embarrassment, which still exists
today throughout most of the Western world.
I t wasn't just the early church, of course, that enjoyed a monop
oly on images of naked flesh. Until the ninctcenth celllury, the
only way an artist could portray the unclothed body without risk

of censure I\'as to set the nudes within <I context that was either

classical or bibliC<lI-Eve and the serpent, Leda and the swan-so

long as you can't actually see it going in. Mind you, that's not to
say that there weren't always artists who Ivere unafraid of censure,
or that the church's standpoint on the issue was at all times and in
all lands univcrsally observed. The flow of English literature since
its Saxon beginnings would seem largely unconcerned with sexual


propriety. A fell' of Chaucer's Call/erbllry Tales are indistinguish

able from the soft-core sex romps that swamped English cinemas
during the


Cm'r)' on up the Four/een/h Centlll")'. Confessions

oj a Pardoner. Shakespeare could work encrypted lavatorial filth

into descriptions of a lady's handwriting: "Her Cs, her Us




whereby she Illaketh her greal Ps." That said, it wasn't until

William Caxton devised his printing press-for younger readers,

just think fifteenth-century Internet-that a tradition of pornog
r<lphy as \\'e would understand the term lOda)' was able to develop.
Just as \\'ith the Internet, the new technology was put almost im
mediately to the purpose of disseminating dirty pictures.
Prior to this point, when mass production first became a possibil
ity, erotic culture had existed only in the private realm of artists
and collectors, which in public terms is much the same as saying
it did nOt exist at all. The church had never previously adopted
a position on pornography, simply because there wasn't any, and

it \\',IS re1ali\ely slo\\' to recognize it when it finally showed up. By

William Blake's day in the last half of the eighteenth century, con
temporary London was awash with fuck-books and salacious prints



,,,',',' , '""0"'"' '",' """, '0"'"'''", "' " ,,"

selling directory of whores that introduced the phrase "as lewd as

goats and rnonkeys to the English language, meant apparently
as a recommendation, as a Regency equivalent to Michelin's four
stars. It's also worth remembering the late 1700S as the era during which, in France, the r\'larquis Donatien Alphonse Franois
de Sade began to use outrageous, violent, scatological, and fre
quently intensely dull pornography for the first time as a blunt
instrument for sodal satire, finding in society's great squeamishness about its carnal impulses a vulnerable underbelly open
to attack.
Yet when the nineteenth century began to get seriously under way,
amid European worries with regard to all the revolutions of the
previolls fifty years coupled with the uncertainty and paranoia typifying the Napoleonic Wars, a more repressive and authoritarian
mood prevailed. While an undeniably large number of liccntious chapbooks circulated throughout this period, these were
already starting to adopt the furtive underground associations
and hunched posture that would stigmatize and lame pornogra
phy for the next hundred years or so.
As for open involvement in erotic work by writers, artists, or any
creators of proven ability, the ground appears to have become a
toxic wasteland, poisonous to the reputation and alive with career
pathogens. When 'Villiam Blake expired in 1827, even though his
willingness to embrace sexuality and a broad range of sexually
unorthodox ideas was central to his whole philosophy, overproteclive devotees persuaded his wife, Catherine, to purge his work
of any overtly erotic art or writings. That Blake had a love and
also a facility for pornographic images can still be seen in his
surviving marginalia, with doodled youths gobbled by neshy ma
trons, but his acolytes had evidently made their minds up that the
poet-visionary they were in the process of constructing would be
more angelic without genitalia. ,,ve can but imagine, wistfully, the
masturbatory masterworks incinerated in Blake's bonfire of pro

Red Dragon Does the Woman Clothed in the


it's better that we don't lonnellt ourselves with all the other glori-


ous artists whose posthumous conflagrations, real porno for pyros,

may have gone completely unrecorded.
With the guilty and embarrassed tone thus set for the impending
reign of Queen Victoria, we find pornography in the condition
that has by and large defined it ever since: a wretched ghetto with
which no respected artist would desire to be associated, and which
therefore rapidly becomes the province of those with no literary
or anistic leanings whatsoever. The once rich erotic landscape was
effectively deserted by the genuinely talented. It turned eventu
ally into a genre that not only had no standards but also appeared
to think it had no need of them, although during Victorian times
this total desertification was still some way off into the future, and
the cultural libido was still showing healthy spurts of life from
time to time.
Indeed, the fat;ade of abstemious morality that came as pan of the
ViClorian packaging appeared to reproduce hot-house conditions


in the prurient imagination of the day. Pornography, exempli

fied by periodicals such as

The Pearl, could

flourish, albeit only as

an underground subculture. This subterranean network, though,

extended a considerable way beneath surface society, so that the
semi-detached homesteads of Victorian suburbia were dangerously
undermined. In those times, long before the advent of the adult
video outlet, city businessmen returning homeward for a week
end with their spouse or panner would call in at some backstreet
establishment and pick up a gaslight equivalent: just as theater pre
dates cinema, so too did fully scored dramatic home pornography
precede the skin-flick. Pornographic playlets could be purchased,
ranging from two-person dramas through to full ensemble pieces if
the neighbors were agreeable. These publications came with sheet
music, so that if one of the participants were musically inclined
then he or she could sit at the piano and provide a vigorous accom
paniment to whatever activity was taking place upon the hearth
rug or the horsehair sofa. (Yes, I know it sounds ridiculous, but

was told that by i\'ialcolm McLaren, and if you can't trust Malcolm
McLaren then whom can you trust?)



on Archie (which reputedly ensured punitive treatment of the E.

C. Comics line by a draconian comics code authority presided over
by the Archie Comics publishers) presented the allegedly "typical
teenager as a high school protection racketeer, with Betty and
Veronica as reefer-smoking jailbait; it was a portrayal that could
quite easily have stepped out of an eight-pager, albeit an eight
pager where tbe flow of sexuality was now only an undercurrent
and where the immensely talented Bill Elderdid a far superior job
of reproducing and subverting the wholeArchie style than had the
gifled Tijuana amateurs preceding him.
Besides a cast of characters culled from newspaper comic strips,
the Tijuana Bible pamphlets also utilized conlemporary actresses
and actors such as Mae West and Laurel & Hardy as their featured
players. Interestingly, the 1930S criminal celebrity such as Baby
Face Nelson orJohn Dillinger had his own subgenre, playing to the
public's obvious affection for a glamorous crook and also to the
aura of near-mythic sexual potency with which such figures were
surrounded in the popular imagination. In this combination of a
wildly antisocial hero figure with the visceral rush of unbridled pornography, the Tijuana Bibles prefigured the comics underground
that would erupt, in San Francisco, in another thirty years or so.
Back in the early to middle twentieth century, however, the erotic
urges in society were finding their most lively manners of expression
in burlesque theater and, a little later, in the "nudie-cutie mov
ies that burlesque had played its part in giving birth to. Through
the 1950S and the 1960s, maverick directors such as Russ Meyer
almost managed to provide a voice for the unconscious dream-life
of America, its libidinous impulses stirred into a demented slap
stick of violence and sex that was at once exuberant and infantile,
marked by a kind of innocence, at least compared with all the joy
less, dead-eyed fare served up for us today. Justly described as a
rural Fel1ini," Meyer seems to have had a specific private goddess
image that was given generous flesh in his iconic women like Tura
Satana or Kitten Natividad. Just as with Robert Crumb a decade
later, Meyer's enshrining of one female body type appears to hark


back to the primal origins of the erotic, to Bog Venus with a shiny
leather makeover and captured not in stone but in celluloid.
In 1950S culture, powerful sexual undertones were evident, sprung
up in opposition to the stining and sexless Eisenhower/McMillan
ethos of the times. Writers such as Hubert Selby, Jr., and Henry
Miller, who'd produced work in the 1930S and the 1940S that was
banned on publication , were beginning to find an appreciative
new a udience and sometimes even foreign publishers, such as
lhe Olympia Press, founded by Maurice Girodias. Hugh Hefner's
Playboy was attempting to establish soft-core porn as an upmarket
lifestyle statement, and a new wave of "sick comedy was coming
i11lo being that would find its apogee in the uncensored and oc
casionally brilliant rants of L enny Bruce. Meanwhile, in Harvey
Kurtzman's MAD there was a sharp new synthesis of hip and Jewish
humor that took sexual references as a standard part of its co
medic repertoire, as in the Kurtzman parody of Julius Caesar in
which a centurion crying "Someone's comingeth! is answered by

a word balloon from somewhere out of panel reading Ooh, I'm

dyingeth! Elsewhere, new and exciting music spilled out of the
radios-black-influenced and sexual \,'ith its label, "rock 'n' roll,
simply another euphemism for the sexual act, as 'Jazz itself had
been. And most importantly of all, in San Francisco in 1955, lhe
poet Lawrence Ferlingheui started publishing as City Lights Books
in North Beach, the city's famously bohemian Italian quarter that
had previously been inhabited by anti-Mussolini anarchists.
Having heard the young New York poet Allen Ginsberg's first pub
lic performance of his William Blake-inspired work Howl at the Six
Gallery in 1955, the impressed Ferlinghetti published it through
City Lights Books in November 1956. Despite the minimal atten
tion that lhe book. at first received-hardly surprising for a first
work. by an unknown author in the pretty much neglected field
of poetry-by June 1957 a police raid carried out on City Lights
Books and a subsequent trial for obscenity pushed Howl and Othn
Poems lO the forefront of the nation's consciousness. Judge Clayton
Horn, surprisingly, ruled that a work could not be deemed obscene
if it possessed "the slightest redeeming social significance."

Judge Horn's decision meant that City Lights could put out Howl
and many other controversial pieces without fear of damaging re
prisals from those in authority. Although some writings were still
too extreme to publish for a year or two, such as the first ten chap
ters of The Nak.ed Lunch by William S. Burroughs, which had been
turned down by the Chicago Literary Revue, the ruling meant that
the Beat writers could now crystallize around Ferlinghetti's premi
ses at 261 Columbus Avenue and spark what is possibly the most
exciting literary movement of the twentieth century. It also meant
that an important legal precedent had been established, granting
sexual material immunity from prosecution if it could be shown as
socially significant or of artistic merit.
This was the defense successfully adopted some years later in
lhe widely celebrated English coun case over D. H. Lawrence's
Lady Chatterley's Lover, during which the prosecuting counsc\ Surll
marized a still-prevailing attitude toward pornography when he
suggested that no decent person would allow their wives or scrv50

anlS" to read such a work. This one remark, betraying as it did a

ludicrously antiquated and Victorian view of social matters, almost
certainly convinced the jury to vote on the side of the defense. The
point of view behind the prosecution's statement is that while "we,"
being white males of a certain age and social standing, are far too
evolved to be depraved by such material, its probable effects upon
those morally more feeble than ourselves (such as the young, the
working classes, foreigners, or women) would be ruinous.
'Vhile as a work of modern beatnik poetry Howl could be safely
overlooked by the m<tiority of average citizens, the Lad)' Chatter/e)'
trial meant that most homes in the Western world would come
to own a much-thumbed copy of \\,lut is in fact a relatively minor
work by D. H. Lawrence. Sexual subject matter, in the public's
eye, had become normalized, which would open the floodgates
to the rush of sexually suggestive or explicit television programs,
movies, books, and pop-song lyrics that would help define the
1960s, although obviously such progress did not go entirely unop
posed. Books were still banned, films were still censored, and at
one of London's practically unheard-of exhibitions of erotic art

during the sixties, doodles by John Lennon were seized by police,

along with several

L)'sistmla prints

by poor old Aubrey Beardsley,

who had been dead seventy years by then. Organizations such as

the National Viewers and Listeners Association headed by self
publicizing, self-appointed moral guardian Mary \Vhitehouse
would put pressure on the BBC to tone down certain television
shows or to remove SCOtt \Valker's version of the Jacques Brei clas
sic Jackie from the radio playlists lest its references to "authentic
queers and phoney virgins" should corrupt the young.
The running battle faced by sexual expression during the "permis
sive sixties" is an indication of how deeply feelings ran upon the
issue. Evidently, the same social squeamishness regarding sex that
the Marquis de Sade had made his target back in revolutionary
France was still a soft spot that those wishing to critique society
could do far worse than to attack. The hippie movemelll, welling
up in the mid-sixties around various reference points, including
Aubrey Beardsley's an nouveau extravagances, William Blake, and
Allen Ginsberg's howled response to Blake, was quick to seize on
sexual rebellion as a favorite mode of confrontation.
This is not to imply that a fOlll of functional hippie-porn did not
spring up. It did, although its manifestations were often subter
ranean to a degree that caused nary a ripple on the surface of
public consciousness.

Fuck You: A Magazine of the Arts represellled

Ed Sander's "total assault on culture," something he would later

take musical with the Fugs, whose calls for group gropes of every
description were greeted with jubilance. Leonore Kandel's



a slim volume of erotic poetry, inexplicably prosecuted in

San Francisco, seemed almost the last gasp of the new purilans,
although they continued to issue intermittent squeaks (before re
emerging with a roar). By the time Essex House began to issue true
hippie porn-David Meltzer's Agency trilogy, Charles Bukowski's

Noles of a Dirt)' Old J\lJan,

Philip Jose Farmer's

Image of the Beast-

the elHire concept of porn-as-writing seemed to be a dead letter.

This was largely due to the efforts of Barney Rossen and Grove
Press at redefining the boundaries of acceptable literature. Grove
Press went to trial on

Challerle;', Tropic of Cancer,


Naked Lunch,


11r'''7Na f-q;"uw/'&n.Q/0hnJ" Zmf",,;;).-k tek






winning each case and pushing the frOluiers a liule further each
time. But, indeed, a picture is worth a thousand words.
Nowhere is this counter-culLUral assault on sexual conformity bet
ter exemplified than in the early comic strips of the extraordinary
Robert Crumb, whose pioneering efforts in the underground press
turned out work that would prove seminal in every sense. Using a
reassuringly familiar and therefore highly subversive style, Crumb
gleefully submerged himself in the most flagged-off and restricted
waters of the mass unconscious, serving up a vision of America as
seen through sexually obsessive eyes, peopled by Snoids and nu
bile Yetis, with its most forbiddenJoe Blow urges dragged out from
behind suburbia's concealing drapes, set down in black and white
for evel)'one to see. That Crumb's work was received enthusiasti
cally across the social spectrum would suggest that after the initial
shock had worn off, many people found it was a vision that they
recognized. They knew, in the contemporary phrase, where Crumb
was coming from.
While there were obvious precursors for the underground cartoon
explosion in


comics, Tijuana Bibles, and the fanzine press

that Crumb had been a part of, it was Crumb \\'ho set the bar
for the cartoonists who would follow him, with the release of Zap


peddled from a baby carriage by the artist up and down the

freak-encrusted length of Haight StreeLJust as with the Sex Pistols

almost a decade later, Crumb's work was the catalyst that launched
the equally extreme careers of those who followed him. Crumb's
work in Zap, along with that of gifted cronies such as S. Clay Wilson,
Spain, or Robert \Villiams, plus the many undergrounds that Zap
inspired, would turn out to be a high-tide line in pornography,
created cheerfully with an intent that was both social and artistic.
(The brilliant underground cartoonist Sharon Rudahl, using the
nom de plume Mary Sativa, wrote

The Acid Temple Ball,

a remark

able novel-published as part of the Olympia Press's "Traveller's

Companion" series-that lovingly recounted a woman's sexual ex
periences while under different combinations of illicit substances.)
When the comics undergrounds at last gave up the ghost in the late
'970s, there would be nothing of real energy or spirit that would

rise to take their place. Crumb soldiered valiantly on in Weirdo and

in other publications, but although his work remained as marve
lous as ever (and, in fact, continued to improve and to progress),
there was the sense now of a solitary maeS1ro laboring in isolation,
rather than that of a figurehead with a whole socio-artistic move
ment surging up behind him.
By and large, what happened in the 1970S was that the hard-won
sexual freedoms of the previous decades, fought for on grounds of
ideology, became-predictably-a booming market ripe for exploi
tation. Obviously encouraged by the growth of sexual expression in
the arts during the sixties, moviemakers in the seventies decided
that the lowly porn film could be wrapped in bigger budgets and
improved production values. It could be rc-branded, dressed up
in a way that ,,,ould suggest artistic meri1, and by this means could
become for the first time mass-market cinema. In offerings such
as The Devil ill Miss jones, The Opening oj Mist)' Beethoven, Behi?!d tlJe
Cree?! Door, and a scal1.ering of oLhers, pam directors tried with val'-


ying degrees of sllccess to transcend the trashy, dopey limitations of

their chosen genre. Smoother camel<\ work and more imaginath'e
sets combined with vestiges of genuine acting talent and at least
some semblance of a screenplay to create works that appeared
artistic, although only when compared with all the drooling half
wil1ed porn films that had come before.
Even so, the public seemed to like the new availability of porno in
the mainstream and responded with enough enthusiasm to allow
such movies to proliferate-right up until the point where the real
age of Traci Lords came out. Defenses of anistic or social signifi
cance were useless when confronted by an actual statutory offense,
and with this chink in porno's arty armor opened up by the au
thorities, the induSlry seems


have beaten an immediate retreat,

with the big-budget porn flick rapidly consigned to history.

Of course, by then the 1980s were jus1 arOllnd the corner, and the
porno movie would be rescued by the massive rise of the home
video market, but its emphasis and ilS agenda would be changed
accordingl)'. Whereas the improved production values of the 19ioS


had been designed to draw in a crossover mainstream audience

to the cinemas, home video viewers were identified, perhaps in
pan correctly, as a captive and addicted market that was entirely
undiscriminating in its viewing habits. Subtly yet imponantly, the
audience's view of itself also changed. Wbile sitting in a crowded
cinema watching pornography amongst a hundred other normal
individuals or couples could conceivably be quite a liberating com
munal experience and an indicator of one's liberal tolerance and
sophistication, watching a porn movie all alone behind closed
shutters is a very different matter, and it invokes a different mind
set. The experience is generally funive, secretive, ashamed. While
it might be acceptable to mention at the office the next day that
you had been to the cinema the night before and watched Deep


purely to see what all the fuss was about, naturally, you

might think twice before regaling colleagues with the news that
you stayed home and masturbated over

Anal Virgins IV

Pornography, although more massively distributed than it had ever

previously been, was now reduced to a mass market without any
standards or criteria, rapidly accumulating an attendant atmosphere of sordidness and shame. Still, juSt so long as pornographic
culture could be kept indoors, a private, addictive, and increasingly expensive vice, it remained a very lucrative commodity.


noted earlier, sexual fantasy is something that is free to anyone still

in possession of a sexual imagination, but the pornographic video


sells us a lifeless and lackluster substitute for something

we could have created much more satisfyingly ourselves. This, in

the eyes of the authorities, mUSt be the perfect situation for pornography: make i t available, so that those massive revenues and
taxes can start rolling in, but keep it frowned upon and shameful
so that you don't get an Allen Ginsberg turning up and claiming
that it.'s art, it's civil liberties, a movement, politics-anything that
sounds dangerous.
Of course, both sex and sexual expression are political and always
have been, but it wasn't until the late 1960s and the t970S that
they were widely seen as such. Sprung up from the same sixties
counterculture that had given risc to Robert Crumb came femi-


nism to provide the anisl with his fiercest critics. Feminists took
the position that pornography exploited and degraded women,
which was certainly an argument that it was difficult to disagree
with in light of much of the material that was available around that
time. If it had remainedjuslo that-an argument put forward as an
element in a continuing debate-then it might not have polarized
the liberal community 1.0 the degree that it unquestionabl}' came
to do. Instead of putting ideas forward as a proposition, feminism
at the time delivered them as dictums from a moral high ground.
And instead of properly considering the issues raised b)' feminism,
liberal men perceived themselves as victims of an unprovoked at
tack lipan their sexuality, responding angrily. Feminist protestors
against porn would find themselves uueasy bedfellows with right
wing Christian campaigners and would also find themselves on the
receiving end of an equiv<llenl amount of left-wing ire, some of it
justified and some of ilunfair.
For one thing, it's important to distinguish between the objections
of the chanting feminists and those of placard-waving Christians,
even when they're part of the same picket line oUl.Side an adult
video emporium. Feminist arguments, even those one may not
agree with, are at least constructed on the principles of logic and
therefore can be debated, having precepts that are falsifiab1cthat can be proved or disproved. Religiolls arguments against
pornograph}', alternately, are based upon the idea of a disapproving superbeing, proof of whose existence has thus far eluded us.
This is not to say that God does not exist, nor that religious people aren't entitled t o their point of view, but is simply intended to
point out that ideas predicated upon a specific deity's existence
arc not rational ideas, and therefore have no place in rational disCllssion. I'm sorry, I don't make the rules. That'sjust the wa}' it is,
and we would have to elltirel}, change the meaning of the English
bHlguage before we could make it otherwise.
Despite the rational basis of the feminist agenda, though, it had
been served up, understandably, as confrontation, and high feel
ings on both sides meant that a sensible debate ,,'ould never really
be a possibility, The already-fragmented Left became divided upon


,ZUW- -lU> f1Jr':Y"c.)





grounds of gender, with both camps in their entrenched and stale

mated positions-men insisting that the issue was completely one
of civil liberties, women insisting it was one of sexual politics. Both
sides were right, of course, but by then were not speaking to each
olher, so the debate remained in deadlock.
Attitudes toward pornography had nOl jusl brought aboUl a schism
in the liberal ranks, though, but had pretty much split feminism
itself down the middle. Many wotnen, and some men, who Slill
believed that women had a way to go before social equality was
reached became reluClant to describe themselves as feminists be
cause of the censorious and illiberal connotations that the tenn
had taken on. Rejecting feminism's dogma on pornography, some
women made an effort to reclaim the genrc in pro-sexual pub
lications such as

On Our Backs, its Litlc borrowcd impishly from

Off OUT Backs. Elsewhere were the first stir

hardline feminist mag

rings of the erstwhile network that would later call itsdfFcminists

Against Censorship.
Although it would evcntually be these dissenting fcmale voices who
would suggest a possible solution to the unproductive stand-off on
the issue of pornography, during the mid-nineties the arrival of
the Internet would mean that, once more, any ethical debate of
the subject would be swept to one side, overtaken by events and
by the socially transforming onslaught of technology. Just as home
video had meant [hat porno could be privately enjoyed by a much
greater segment of the population, the arrival of the Internet took
all that one stage further. Whereas renting videos or DVDs might
still entail the risk of being caught by an acquaintance scuttling
furtively out of a rental outlet, or of having one's porn stash discov
ered by a disapproving spouse, the ItHernet apparently removed
that final hurdle. It became clear that a large m<tiorily of people
weren't as frightened of pornography as they were scared of being
found out.
England, in the 1970s, was racked by strikes that culminated in a
national three-day week while shops and businesses were closed
by power failures. If the blackouts happened unexpectedl)" then

stores and supermarkets found that there were sudden bursts of

opportunist shoplifting. Even at the upmarket retail chains such
as Marks & Spencer, managers discovered that their prim, pre
dominantly middle-class customers weren't averse to slipping some
expensive item deep within their twinsets when the lights were out.
Public morality must obviously be seen to be observed in order to
retain one's social standing, bUl when no one can see anything at
all, it's a difTerel1l matter.
So it was with the arrival of the Internet: II! cyberspace, no one can
hear you climax. Since reputedly the greater part of all the traf
fic on this information superhighway is devoted to the viewing or
downloading of pornography, we must assume that the demand
for porn is almost universaL Perusing smut would seem to be no
longer an activity confined to isolated sexual deviants, but more a
pastime human beings simply el'U0Y when left to their own devices.
Also it would seem as if commercial porno has become the undis
cussed wallpaper of contemporary society-it is so ubiquitous that
it is accepted without question as a fact of life.
Pornography, or what would only recently have been referred to
as pornography, is now a part of mainstream culture. Having sex
ual undertones or even overtones since its inception, pop music
during the 19805 first began to consciously adopt overtly porno
graphic stances with a repertoire of pornographic imagery and
references employed by artists such as Prince, Madonna, Frankie
Goes to Hollywood, and a parade of others. \Vhere Chuck Berry
had been banned for serving up single-entendres on the subject
of his ding-a-ling, and Lou Reed gOl away with Candy Darling giv
ing head in his "vValk on the Wild Side" solely because British
censors didn't understand the term, the Spice Girls now convey
their need to

Zig-a-zig-ahh to an audience of ten-year-old girls


complcte impunity.
Properly packaged as a taxable commodity, erotic imagery per
vades our culture to an extent that would have been previously
unimaginable. While pornography employed by individuals for
their personal pleasurc as an aid to masturbation is still seen as

something vaguely shameful, its lise in a corporate COlHexl, as a

means of selling us consumer goods, is smilcd on. Advertisers fill
Ollr television scrccns and billboards with it, trying to associate
their snack food, car, or line of sweaters with arousal so that they
can shift more units. Rock, pop, and rap promoters drape their
artists' videos and lyrics in it without commcnt, so that in a cli
mate of increased concern and indeed mounting panic over
pedophilia it's perfcclly OK for Brimey Spears to posture in a fet
ishistic schoolgirl outfit of a type that cannot actually have been
worn by a schoolgirl any time Lhis century. The word -fuck," once
inflammatory when on the lips of Allen Ginsberg, Lenny Bruce, or
Kenneth Tynan, can bc cutely scrambled as thc logo for the French
Connection clothing line's United Kingdom franchise. The big
difference betwcen our commercial porno-culture and traditional
pornography, howcvcr, is that while the former is more limited
and soft-core than the latter, it's no longer something sought out
by an eager and consenting individual but instead is a feature of
society that there is no avoiding-it's there whether we like it or
not. As a culturc, we are more intensely sexualized and stimulated
than we've ever been before, and from the rising rate of sex crime
it appears that we're nOt dealing with it very well.
Is this because, as Christian moralists and even some unrecon
structed feminists might still suggest, pornography corrupts the
moral fiber of its victims to the point where fantasies spill over into
actual rape or scxual abuse? Probably not, if one considers for a
moment just how many people are exposed to pornographic im
agery at some poim in their lives, and just how liny a percentage
of those people evcr have recourse to rape or other sexual crimes.
While serial murderers and rapists such as Ted Bundy might claim
on the eve of execution that it I\'as pornography that gave them
the idea for all their crimes and misdemeanours, this ignores the
fact that for each psychopath who makes this claim there are a
hundred thousand normal people who appear to never have been
pushed over the edge into monstrosity by anything they watched
or read. Besides, I've personally yet to find a pornographic work
that features anyone removing all their car's interior door handles
or dressing in a plaster cast

/<;'Y 4;;,.....(


lull their prey illio a false sense of




security. Perhaps it's a niche market that I've yet to come across,
or possibly those ideas came out of the perpetrator's own psycho
pathology, not from pornography at all.
Should we decide, then, that there's no conneClion between the
eroticism saturating western culture and the rising tide of sex
crime in that culture? Probably, once more, we shouldn't, although
the connection may not be as simple and direct as were expect
ing. It's instructive to consider different countries in the light of
their reaction to pornography, where it appears that the problem
might not be in our pornography itself so much as in the way we
view pornography as a society. In Denmark, Spain, and Holland
it is possible to find hardcore pornography in almost evell' fam
ily newsstand, such fare having become so commonplace that it is
barely noticed. With pornography accepted as a fact of life, the at
tached sense of shame and guilt we find in the United States and
Britain is conspicuously absent. Also notable in the porn-tolerant
cultures mentioned above is the low rate of sex crime, relative to
the United Kingdom and United States, that these cultures enjoy,
almost as if within such cultures porno is able to function as a social safety valve in a way that English/American society does not
allow. Given that the Internet is global, it's not that these places
have less or more porn than we do, nor that they're less sexualized by general culture than ourselves. Could it be, simply, that like
Palaeolithic fetish-worshippers or Ancient Greeks, they treat it differently and are affected by it differently in turn?
Consider how we treat pornography on either side of the Atlantic:
living in cultures that have been deliberately sexualized for pur
poses of commerce, it is not unlikely that some of the population
will find themselves overstimulated and will seek release from this
condition, usually by resorting to whatever form of porno is most
readily available. Unfortunately, in societies that have followed the
early church's lead by letting people view pornography on the sole
understanding that to do so is a sin, such a release will be accom
panied almost immediately by a reflex reaction of guilt, shame,
embarrassment, and maybe even actual self-disgust.




To understand how this conflicted situation could conceivably af

fect an individual's hard-wiring, let's imagine one of psychologist
B. F. Skinner's rat experimcnLS, albeit onc that's even more per
vcrse than usual. In our new expcriment, the rat is givcn first his
stimulus by me<lllS of, say, that schoolgirl promo-piece by Britncy
Spears we mentioned earlier. Stimulated thus, our rodent is con
ditioned to respond by pressing on the porno-lever to achieve
the requisite reward of sexual release. Once this reward has been
acquired, however, our rat "'ill receive a strong electric shock of
shame. Reward and punishment , therefore, become perversely
linked. The only route to pleasure involves pain and humiliation.
Would this treatment, carried out millions of times across whole
rodent populations, have a beneficial or a deleterious effect upon
their mental health, do you suppose?
With human beings, in the soci ally constructed Skinner boxes of
our sexuality, it isn't going too far to suggest that certain individu
als are thus deprived of the release they seek, unable to accept the

shame and loathing by which it is accompanied. Extended o\er an

entire society, this means the pressure-cooker lid is kept secure
ly on, while the release-valve isn't functioning the way it does in
Holland, Spain, or Denmark.
Subsequently we are subjected to morc frequent and disastrous
explosions of the sex drive-ugly eruptions into real life by
what should have been a harmless fantasy. The outcast status of
pornography appears to drive some people into shadowy and claus
trophobic isolation \\'here their sexual daydreams can tu rn into
something dark and dangerolls that is to nobody 's advantage, nei
ther themselves, their victims, nor society at large. Worse still, in
sexually restrictive cultures where pornography is seen as causing
sexual crime (rather than as providing an escape-valve thallllight
possibly prcvent it) the instinctual response is almost certainly a
fresh attempt to bear down on the pressure-cooker's lid.
Where does this leave us, and where docs it leave pornography?
With each new technological advance since William Caxton it
would seem pornography has both proliferated and degraded in its

quality. Today's society, thanks to the hHernet and other factors, is

entirely saturated with erotica of tile most basic, rudimentary kind:
cOllvict pornography for convict populations shuffling through
life's mess-hall, without any other options than the slop they're
given. Porn is everywhere, jusl as it was in ancient Greece, but
where is it in art? Rarely is it an affirmation of common humanity
the way it was in classic culture but instead <lffirms only our aliena
tion and our distance from each other. Despite its mass <lvailability,
it does not appear to be making us any happier.
Rather than functioning as a release for our quite ordinary sexual
imaginings, porn functions as another social tether, as COl1trol
leash, lure, and lash combined in one, a callie-prod that looks just
like a carrol. Dangling temptingly before liS everywhere we look,
it leads us


Then, in the guilty aftermath of our indulgences, it

converts handily into a rod of shame with which to flog ourselves.

This is especially true of the United States as it negotiates the
effects of its ovm "Ceorgian era, although as with the unreasol1able influence Victorian England had upon the world back ill the
nineteenth century, the repercussions of former faith-based presidencies in America are felt across the globe. They're felt in terms
of their effect on foreign policy, on the sciences and arts, and on
how we think about our sexuality and its entitlemenlS. Soaking in
cyber-porn and promo-porn, the sexual heal within society is
higher than it's ever been-the needle on the boiler's dial tipping
alarmingly into the red-yet at this point in history we're govemed
by a mindsetthat is programmed to respond by damping down on
the escape valve, on pornography. Wipe out pornography, the idea
seems to be. and we'll have also somehow wiped Ollt all the urges
that first prompted us to sculpt Bog Venus in the first place.
Clearly, the eradication of pOl'llography is ncvcr going to happen.
Porn's been with us since Ollr Palaeolithic past and will in every
likelihood be with us until we succeed in tidying our species from
thc planct. -No porn," then, is not a realistic option. I suggest that
the only choice we genuinely have is between good pornography
and bad pornography. This obviously begs

bunch of questions,


the first being how we differentiate between the two. Just for the
purposes of argument let us define "good" porn, like good Judge
Clayton Horn, as that which is of noticeable social benefit, with
bad" porn as its opposite, that which is noticeably to our social det
riment. Of course, this raises a much bigger questioll, namely, docs
"good" porn even exist? If not, could it conceivably exist at some
point in the future, and what would it look like if it did?
To answer this, we could do far worse than refer back to those few
dissenting female voices that were raised, back when the feminist
debate upon pOfllography was at its hottest and perhaps its most
intelligent. Taking some inspiration from Simone de Beauvoir's
influential essay Must We Burn Sade?, the wonderful and greatly
missed Angela Carter muses on porn in her book The Sadeian
WOmetl, finally suggesting that there might be some form of pornog

raphy yet undiscovered, glorious and liberating, unencumbered

by the inequalities of sex and sexuality that dogged it in the past.
Even porn's most uncompromising and vociferous feminist critic,

Andrea Dworkin, has conceded that benign pornography might

be conceivable, even if she considered such a thing highly un
likely. Given that we don't want "bad" pornography and can't have
no pornography, it's in this mere suggestion of the possibility of
"good" pornography that the one ray of light in an intractable de
bate resides.
The question still remains, however, how pornography might have
a beneficial influence upon society, exactly? If we can't imagine
such a situation, then how would we recognize it if it should arise?
Even if we agree with Andrea Dwol'kin, Angela Carter, Kathy Acker,
ilnd Simone de Beauvoir that our hypothetical "good" porn is pos
sible, that doesn't help us much unless we have a clear idea ofjust
what good, what benefit, pOn1ography of the right kind might work
within our culture.
\Ve've observed already that in places sllch as Denmark, Spain, or
Holland porn appears to act to some extent as a release valve, vent
ing sexual pressures harmlessly before they can explode in sex
crime or abuse. We also noted that this doesn't seem to work in

more restrictive cultures, where reflexive guilt and shame seem to

allend the very notion of pornography. What if it were possible to
bring such a degree of artistry to our pornography that this im
mediate link between erotica and dire social embarrassment was
severed? Might pornography in this way be allowed to function as
it does in more enlightened climes, reducing our appalling score
of actual men and women scarred and violated, actual children
raped and killed and dumped in a canal? 1sT!'t such a thing at least
worth the allempt? Pornography, if it could be expressed artisti
cally in such a way, might welcome our sexual imagination in from
the cold, into the reassuring warmth of socio-political acceptability.
The power of art is that it lets us see, in someone else's work, an
idea that we dimly formed but lacked the skill to realize or convey,
and in this way makes us feel less alone. Pornography as we con
ceive of it today, however, does the opposite. It isn't art, cannot
be openly admired or discussed, and serves only to convince us of
our isolation, to increase our sense that we are in our secret and
most intimate desireS alone save for the reeking company of other
sweaty, masturbating perverts and social inadequates.
l f w e could redefine erotica, restore it to the venerated place in art
that it \,'as once accustomed to, this might defuse a number of our
personal and social tensions with regard to sex in much the way it
seems to have done at the dawn of western civilization. Realized
properly, pornography could offer us a safe arena in which to dis
cuss or air ideas that otherwise would go unspoken and could only
fester in our individual dark. Our sexual imagination is and always
has been central to our lives, as individuals or as a species, and
our culture might be much enriched, or at least more relaxed, if
it acknowledged this. There'd be no morc divine pornography by
any future William Blake incinerated after his demise, no future
Aubrey Beardsley on his deathbed, frightened, coughing for his
finest work to be destroyed, no frilly decadent or bearded Beat
compelled either to cower behind a pseudonym or add to the pro
lific oeuvre of "Anonymous."
Ennobled thus, pornography could take itB place once more as a
revered and almost sacred totem in society-could be brought full

circle to its origins in the pneumatic pinhead babe ofWillendorf.

It seems we only have two choiccs in the way that we regard
ollr own erotic dreams: either we can accept them and restore
Bog Venus to her natural and proper place in culture, or we
can reject them and allempt to stigmatize thcm, attaching arousal to
so much conditioned shame and guilt and pain that in effect we
have contained our scxuality within a spiky ninctcenth-ccntury
German cockring.
In the cnd, it is in the hands of individual people-individual
artists. writcrs. filmmakers, or poets. If they have the nerve to
plant their nags in this despised and dangerous terrain dcspite
its uninviting nature, then in time the dismal wilderness might
be transformed inLO a scentcd garden of enduring valuc. The
erotic might be elevated from her current status as a hooker evc
ryone keeps chained up in their cellar but nobody talks aboLLt,
unmentionable bUl available, back to her previous position as a
We might find shc's changed some since her chunky limestone
origins, might find she no\\' resembles somcthing more along the
lines depicted in P01'7lokrales by the magniflcent F'elicien Raps.
This superb work, bcgun by Rops in the late 18705, depicts the
spirit of portlography herself, a gorgeous woman seen in profile
treading carefully from right to left across thc image, clad in only
boots. gloves, stockings. jewelry, and a drifting sash, topped by a
Gainsborough hat. Pale flowers are in her hair, and, similarly pale,
there is a blindfold tied across her eyes. Held on a leash as though
it were a well-clipped poodle is a lean young pig that seems 10 lead
the sightless beauty in the manner of a guide dog. At a pace sedate
and dignified, il navigates for its blind mistress what may be only
a decorative lower border to the picture but which looks like the
embellished stonework of a wall or ledge, along the top of which
the elcgant embodied spirit of Viclori an pornography is guided by
a snuffling hog; a swine before the pearl.
A frieze runs in relief along lhe wall or border's topmost edge, de
picting effigies of the fine arts, sealed with thcir parchment, lute


..x;.,;.... f!lltJ/'.)
%,U,J,j,-, $('('C"#


or easel and yet hanging down their heads, looking away embar
rassed as the goddess of pornography parades there brazenly above
them. Similarly, hovering in the air before her as she walks there
are three anguished cherubs, tearing at their hair as they regard
her lewd display. Behind her blindfold, unaware of how she looks
and rightly unconcerned by the controversy she's causing, utterly
unworried by the precipice she steps along, the voluptuous essence
of pornography is calm, serene. She trusts her safety to an animal
conventionally seen as the epitome of dirtiness and brutish instinct,
this despite its widely mentioned cleanliness and keen intelligence.
The goddess walks along her wall, proud and unmindful of the
drop to either side, secure in her conviction that she is a thing of
loveliness, safe in the knowledge that by following her noble and
yet much-despised animal urge she will be led unerringly toward
her rightful queenly destiny.
Shameless and blind to all the outraged posturings occasioned by
hcr presence, Venus promenades along the moral tightrope of her
path, walking the pig, sure-footed and invulnerable in her glamour
as she wanders, one step at a time, toward the hoped-for glow of a
morc human and enlightened future.








Page 1. Vintage daguerreotype of French jiUe dI!jOie, circa

1870. Courtesy private collection.
Page 4. Vintage French postcard, early 1900s. Courtesy private
Page 8. Vintage daguerreotype of French jiUe dejoie, circa
1870. Courtesy priVate collection.
Page 11. Venus oj WillendOlj, Oolitic limestone, 4.38 in. (11.1
Col). Courtesy of Naturhistorische Museum, Wien, Austria.
Photograph Ali Meyer, the Bridgeman Art Library.
Page 12. DeviJagamandi from the Temple at K1ujuraho,
Madhya. Courtesy the Association for \"'orld Heritage Sites in
Page 15. Athenian Lovers, bowl. Fifth cenlUl), B.C., from
the Antiquities and Cast Callery. Courtesy The Ashmolean
Museum Picture Library, University of Oxford, England.
Page 19. Pan and Daphnis by Heliodoros. Marble sculpture.
Collezione Farnese, Naples. Photograph BEBAIAlSA.
Courtesy the Bridgeman Art Library and Museo Archeologico
Nazionale di Napoli, Italy.
Page 20. ErOlic scene, Casa del CeOlenario (Villa of
Centenary), Pompeii, Italy. Fresco. Photo: Fotografica Foglia.
Photo Credit: Scala I Art Resource, I\IY.
Page 23. Adam and Eve by Alben Durer. Engraving, 9.86 x
7.86 in. (25.1 x 20 cm). Courtesy the Bridgeman An Library
and the British Museum, London, England.
Pages 24-25. The Sleeping Venus by Ciorgione. Oil on canvas,
42.7 x 68.9 in. (l08.5 x 175 COl). Staatliche KunslSammlun
gen, Dresden, Gennany. Courtesy the Bridgeman Art Library


and Gemaeldegalerie Alte Meister, Dresden, Germany.

Page 26. The Temptation o/St. Anthony by Veronese. Oil on can
vas, 78 x 59.4 in. (198 x 151 cm). Courtesy the Bridgeman Art
Library and Musee des Beaux-Arts, Caen, France.
Pages 28-29. Leda and the Swan by Michelangelo. Pen and ink
on paper, 41.5 in. x 55.5 in. (105.4 x 141 em). Counesy the
Bridgeman An Library and the Musee des Beaux-Arts,
Orleans, France, Giraudon.
Page 31. Cupid and Psyche by Franc;ois Gerard. Oil on canvas.
Courtesy the Bridgeman Art Library and the Louvre, Paris,
Page 32. The Mysterious Rose Garden by Aubrey Beardsley.
Lithograph for The Yellow Book. Private collection. Photo
AISA. Courtesy the Bridgeman Art Library.

Page 33. Spine designs by Aubrey Beardsley for The Yellow

Book, volumes II-XlII, published 1894-97. Courtesy the

Stapleton Collection, the Bridgeman Art Library.

Pages 35-37. Color woodblock prints by Katsushika Hokusai.
Courtesy the Bridgeman Art Library and the British Library,
London, England.
Pages 40-41. A Satyr Mourning Over a Nymph, by Piero di
Cosimo. Oil on panel. Courtesy the Bridgeman Art Library
and the British Museum, London, England.
Pages 42-43. Recumbent Nymph by Anselm Feuerbach.
Oil on canvas. Courtesy the Bridgeman Art Library and
Germanisches National Museum, Nuremberg, Germany.
Page 45. Venus and Cupid by Lucas Cranach the Elder. Oil on
panel. Counesy the Bridgeman An Library and Germanis
ches National Museum, Nuremberg, Germany.
Page 46. The Three Graces by Peter Paul Rubens. Oil on panel.

Courtesy the Bridgeman Art Library and Museo Nacional del

Prado, Madrid, Spain.
Page 49. Leda and the Swan by Jacopo Rubusti Tintoretto. Oil
on canvas, 63.78 x 85.83 in. (162 x 218 em). Counesy the
Bridgeman Art Library and Galleria Degli Uffizi, Florence,
Page 51. La Danaideby Auguste Rodin. Sculpture. Courtesy the
Bridgeman An Library and Musee Rodin, Paris, France.
Page 52. Young Man Silting &y the Sea by Jean-Hippolyte
Flandrin. Oil on canvas. Courtesy the Bridgeman Art Library,
A. Dequier - M. Bard. Counesy Louvre Museum, Paris, France.
Pages 54-55. Etchings from Juliette by Marquis (Donatien
Alphonse Franc;ois) de Sade.
Page 56. The Origin of lhe World by Gustave Courbel. Oil on
canvas, 18.1 x 21.7 in. (46 x 55 em). Courtesy the Bridgeman
An Library and Musee d'Orsay, Paris, France.
Page 59. The Bed by Henri de Toulouse-Lautree. Oil on card
board. Courtesy the Bridgeman Art Library and Musee d'Orsay,
Paris, France.
Page 60. Plate from the Lysistrata by Aubrey Beardsley.
Page 62. Wrestlers by Thomas Eakins. Oil on canvas, 43.38 x 60
in. (122.87 x 152.4 em). Photo 2008 Museum Associates/
LACMA. Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Gift of Cecile C.
Bartman and The Cecile and Fred Banman Foundation.
Pages 64-65. Tales from the Dressing Table by Franz von Bayros.
Page 68. Film stills from The Story of 0 (Histoire d'O) based
on the book by Pauline Reage (Anne Desclos). Courtesy the
Everett Collection.
Pages 70-71. Untitled by Larry Clark. Black and white print,


II x 14 in. (27.94 x 35.56 em). Courtesy the artist and

Luhring Augustine, New York, USA.
Page 72.


by William Cunis. Courtesy the artist.

Page 74. Vintage daguerreotype of French

]870. Courtesy private collection.

fiUe de joie,


Page 75. Korova Milk Bar Waitress Uniform by AllenJones.

Sculpture. Courtesy Marlborough Fine An, Ltd., London,
Pages 78-79. iHaissie in YelLow Panties and Gabby in the Kitchen
by Richard Kern. Photographs. Courtesy Feature, Inc., New
York, USA.
Pages 82-83. The Inconsislencies by Matt Greene. Pencil on
paper, 22 x 30 in. (55.9 x 76.2 cm). Courtesy Deitch Projects,
New York, USA.
Page 85. Pomokrales by Felicien Rops. Pastel and gouache on
paper. Courtesy the Musee Provincial Felicien Rops, Namur,
Belgium. Photo Credit: Erich Lessing / Art Resource, NY.
Pages 86--87. VB45 by Vanessa Beecroft. Kunsthalle Wien,
Vienna, 2001. Photo: Armin Linke. Courtesy Vanessa Beecroft
and Deitch Projects, New York, USA.
Page 88. Untilled by Terry Richardson. Photograph. Courtesy
Trunk Archives, New York, USA.


Dedicated to Melinda Gebbie.

With our appreciation for inspiration and support to: Artlnl1
John Coulthart, Francis Coy, Esther de Hollander, Neil
Egan, Bernardo Guillermo, Eric Himmel, Michelle
lshay, MichaelJacobs, Charlie Kochman,
Thurston Moore,Jutta Pakenis,Jacquie
Poirier, Andrew Prinz, Barney
Rossel, Kiki Sinclail and
Mel Sirna-Bruder.

Editor: Eva Prinz

Project Manager: Esther de Hollander
Production Manager: Jacquie Poirier
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Moore, Alan, 195325,000 years of erotic freedom

/ by Alan "oorc.

ISBN 978-0-8109-4846-4 (Harry N. Abrams, Inc.)
I. ErOlic an-HistOry. 2. Pornography-History. I. Title. II. Title:
Twenty-five thousand years of erotic freedom

Copyright C

2009Al:m Moore

Published in

2009 by Abrams. an imprint of ABRAI>.IS. All rights ,-esen'ed. No

portion of this book may be reproduced, Slored in a retrieval system. or transmitted

in any form or by any means, mechanical. electronic, photocopying, recording, or
other"se, withoul written permission from the publisher.

Printed and bound in Hong Kong

Abrams books are available at special discounts when purchas<::d in quantity for
premiums and promotions as well as fundraising or educational usc. Special
editions can also be created to specification. For details, or the address be low.

15West 18th Street

New York,NY OOII


contact specialmarke ts@